Opinion of people who think Jesus of Nazareth would be a "......." today

[Randy Bobandy]

Really. You're basing everything you know about Jesus from two sources. The first of which is the New Testament of the Bible, which is not at all historically reliable. The second is the writings of first century Christian writers. How about first century non-Christian writers? Zero mention of Jesus. This is probably because early Christianity was even more of a pagan, myth-centered cult than it is today.

So Josephus was a Christian?  Because he certainly is a first Century writer who mentioned him.  Now I can see doubting that the miracles associated with the birth, baptism, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus happened, but there really is no basis to doubt that Jesus the son of Mary lived in Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered disciples and evangelized, and then was crucified. Even a myth has to start somewhere.

Antiquities of the Jews has some very obvious Christian bias.

[Randy Bobandy]

Really. You're basing everything you know about Jesus from two sources. The first of which is the New Testament of the Bible, which is not at all historically reliable. The second is the writings of first century Christian writers. How about first century non-Christian writers? Zero mention of Jesus. This is probably because early Christianity was even more of a pagan, myth-centered cult than it is today.

Actually the earliest copies of the gospels and letters of the NT have been found to be within 2 generations of the apostles. The Bible is actually the most reliable book from antiquity with 99.5% transcript agreement across over 24,000 pre-dark ages manuscripts. 7/8 of all any errors are just grammatical.  The gap between the original composition to the earliest copies we have is about 170 years. No other book from antiquity has anywhere near the volume of manuscripts available today. Even Using just the original Greek there are over 5,300 (The Illiad only has 650).

I'm just going to give up arguing my point. This is a cyclical argument that no one can win.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Really. You're basing everything you know about Jesus from two sources. The first of which is the New Testament of the Bible, which is not at all historically reliable. The second is the writings of first century Christian writers. How about first century non-Christian writers? Zero mention of Jesus. This is probably because early Christianity was even more of a pagan, myth-centered cult than it is today.

So Josephus was a Christian?  Because he certainly is a first Century writer who mentioned him.  Now I can see doubting that the miracles associated with the birth, baptism, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus happened, but there really is no basis to doubt that Jesus the son of Mary lived in Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered disciples and evangelized, and then was crucified. Even a myth has to start somewhere.

Antiquities of the Jews has some very obvious Christian bias.

...no.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Really. You're basing everything you know about Jesus from two sources. The first of which is the New Testament of the Bible, which is not at all historically reliable. The second is the writings of first century Christian writers. How about first century non-Christian writers? Zero mention of Jesus. This is probably because early Christianity was even more of a pagan, myth-centered cult than it is today.

Actually the earliest copies of the gospels and letters of the NT have been found to be within 2 generations of the apostles.

IIRC some of Paul's earlier letters were written only one generation after Jesus's death. And Tacitus also mentions Jesus, though I'm not sure how first-century he is off the top of my head.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

HPs. They remind me of a guy I know who claims Lincoln was a Keynesian.

While that would be anachronistic, Lincoln was practically a Keynesian.

[Deus Naturae]

While that would be anachronistic, Lincoln was practically a Keynesian.

No.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

While that would be anachronistic, Lincoln was practically a Keynesian.

No.

Yes.

[Deus Naturae]

While that would be anachronistic, Lincoln was practically a Keynesian.

No.

Yes.

I realize that my post was somewhat lacking in substance, but it's hard to respond otherwise when someone makes such an outlandish claim with nothing to back it up.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

While that would be anachronistic, Lincoln was practically a Keynesian.

No.

Yes.

I realize that my post was somewhat lacking in substance, but it's hard to respond otherwise when someone makes such an outlandish claim with nothing to back it up.

That's fair. While I have never read anything that suggested that Lincoln used the war to boost the US economy, the war did stimulate the industrial development of the US. So, while I will admit that Lincoln himself wasn't some proto-Keynesian, his policies had many Keynesian effects.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And Tacitus also mentions Jesus, though I'm not sure how first-century he is off the top of my head.

  Well if we dated from the crucifixion instead of his miscalculated birth, he'd be first century.  Tacitus' Annals mentions Jesus, Pontius Pilate, and Nero blaming the Christians for the fire, but it was written in 116AD, which would place it either 83 or 86 years after the crucifixion using the two most commonly accepted dated for that event.  At a minimum Tacitus establishes that there was a sizable enough group of Christians in Rome by the mid-first century that they could plausibly be presented as responsible for the fire by Nero.  But Tacitus doesn't give any insight into Christian belief before the Siege of Jerusalem in Rome, Judea, or elsewhere.

[nuclearneo577]

Option 3. Pretty much sure that he would be a big supported of universal health care at the very least if he existed.

[afleitch]

This ridiculous thread is symptomatic of the level of discourse we have on here these days. It's worse than BRTD's snake handling thread.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

Your retort didn't really help because it didn't explain how the Democratic Party has a monopoly on that core, as opposed to just certain manifestations of it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This ridiculous thread is symptomatic of the level of discourse we have on here these days. It's worse than BRTD's snake handling thread.

It's a board about (mostly) religion on the internet. It could be worse...

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

Your retort didn't really help because it didn't explain how the Democratic Party has a monopoly on that core, as opposed to just certain manifestations of it.

The Democrats do have a monopoly, though. A good gage of the social justice scene is tumblr and when tumblr only supports one party it is the social justice party. There are no republican demisexuals for a reason.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

Your retort didn't really help because it didn't explain how the Democratic Party has a monopoly on that core, as opposed to just certain manifestations of it.

The Democrats do have a monopoly, though. A good gage of the social justice scene is tumblr and when tumblr only supports one party it is the social justice party. There are no republican demisexuals for a reason.

...You're not really using Tumblr as justification for why only party supports social justice, are you?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Don't  with Nathan, sonny boy. He'll chew you up and spit you out.